Hawking his theory

[loCAtek]

Slight tangent, this is also where my train of thought goes;

Energy beings perceived by biological (physical) lifeforms,

In nearly all human cultures, there exists the concept of 'An Angel' a messenger or emissary, from God or the divine. This creature has characteristics of a human or humanoid form with extra-normal abilities such as flight. Flight is commonly observed as the ability of birds, who do so with their wings.

However is an angel merely a physical form with the body of a person and the wings of a bird?

Physiology suggests not, since first of all, the bones and musculature to support a wing structure can not simply sprout from the shoulder blades. Further, and not lastly, the human frame is not aerodynamic enough for flight...

So, why think of angels as people with wings?

Perhaps, it's a perception problem. A being in the air who speaks to us, is seen as another person and their aura (energy field) is understood as their means of flight (gravity defiance); so their aura is depicted in artistic representation as bird wings. Birds fly = the person is flying = they must have wings.
It's all about reducing it into terms the average person can understand; a divine messenger, an angel, is an energy being whom we'll depict as a human with wings in order to grasp the concept of the spiritual[energy] when it's trying to communicate with man [physical].


Angels in Islam;

[thestoat]

Interesting tangent lo.

In nearly all human cultures, there exists the concept of 'An Angel' a messenger or emissary, from God or the divine.

Don't forget that for most of our history this god was the sun, moon, an old tree, etc. The practise of a single god, whose existence conveniently couldn't be verified, wasn't introduced until much later.

So, why think of angels as people with wings?

Simply because when they first came about, man didn't understand flight and believed that if a person did have wings they would be able to fly.

[thestoat]

In what way do you as a Christian emulate God?

To which I answered unfortunately it seems that the one way that Christians as a whole seem to emulate God is in the one way that he reserved solely for himself: Judgement.

I find that a very though provoking statement.

Therefore, if God is always growing and learning, AND already has a huge head start on us- can we ever catch up?

In terms on knowledge, he may already know the contents of the internet, but through technology, we do too. Though of course, there is more information out there than that contained in the internet, so I'd have to say that if he is omniscient then yes, he is likely to always win there. That's 2.

Your point that the universe if finite, might make that possible.

I didn't say that.

However, the Cosmos[greater than, or containing more than one universe] is not finite.

Nobody knows that - these are merely guesses.

Yet, we have [quantum] proof of just that happening with the Big Bang and Black Holes.

I'd be interested in any references for such a proof. When I studied physics this was merely supposition. And it couldn't be quantum proof anyway - the scales are opposing.

Our universe may be one of many God visits in his spiritual energy form that we can never hope to achieve. We are finite, temporal; he/she/it is not.

Ok, that is #3. Still a long, long way from infinite

Making God, or spirit be an energy

Ok, that is something interesting. I could accept that god is a thinking energy field somewhere, though obviously not one who created us, made Noah build a big boat to populate with lots of conveniently close animals, etc. But I'd then argue that he is not unique - if there is one of him then there are loads of him - i.e., he is just a powerful alien. Any why would such a being be interested in us?

[loCAtek]

Interesting tangent lo.

In nearly all human cultures, there exists the concept of 'An Angel' a messenger or emissary, from God or the divine.

Don't forget that for most of our history this god was the sun, moon, an old tree, etc. The practise of a single god, whose existence conveniently couldn't be verified, wasn't introduced until much later.

As man advanced from primitive to civilized cultures, so did his spirituality. Interestingly it seems to coincide with the rising of technology. Anthropology suggests the concept of monotheism has been around since the late bronze age;

The concept sees a gradual development out of notions of henotheism (worshiping a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities) and monolatrism (the recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity). In the ancient Near East, each city had a local patron deity, such as Shamash at Larsa or Sin at Ur. The first claims of global supremacy of a specific god date to the Late Bronze Age, with Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten (speculatively connected to Judaism by Sigmund Freud in his Moses and Monotheism). Currents of monism or monotheism emerge in Vedic India in the same period, with e.g. the Nasadiya Sukta. Philosophical monotheism and the associated concept of absolute good and evil emerges in Judaism, later culminating in the doctrines of Christology in early Christianity and finally (by the 7th century) in the tawhid in Islam.


Wiki

[loCAtek]

Your point that the universe if finite, might make that possible.

I didn't say that.

I beg your pardon, I made an assumption. Do you believe the universe is infinite, or is in some way part of infinity?

However, the Cosmos[greater than, or containing more than one universe] is not finite.

Nobody knows that - these are merely guesses.

Granted, I made that point earlier.

Ok, that is #3. Still a long, long way from infinite

Well, I did say you can't count to infinity, are you asking me to do so now?

Making God, or spirit be an energy

Ok, that is something interesting. I could accept that god is a thinking energy field somewhere, though obviously not one who created us, made Noah build a big boat to populate with lots of conveniently close animals, etc. But I'd then argue that he is not unique - if there is one of him then there are loads of him - i.e., he is just a powerful alien. Any why would such a being be interested in us?

Not so obvious, we know, well strongly speculate, that it took a huge Energy density to create the Big Bang. If it[the energy] thinks, it may wish to create. It's interest could then be paternal.

loCAtek wrote:Yet, we have [quantum] proof of just that happening with the Big Bang and Black Holes.

I'd be interested in any references for such a proof. When I studied physics this was merely supposition. And it couldn't be quantum proof anyway - the scales are opposing.

A current theory

[thestoat]

Do you believe the universe is infinite, or is in some way part of infinity?

That is one of those questions where I really have no opinion one way or the other. My rational mind tells me that the universe must finite, but then if so, what is outside it? Thinking about it gives me a headache

Well, I did say you can't count to infinity, are you asking me to do so now?

Well earlier in this thread you said

'Catching up with him" is again, like saying we can ultimately count to infinity.

I took that to mean that he was capable of infinitely many more things than us, which of course I wouldn't accept

Not so obvious, we know, well strongly speculate, that it took a huge Energy density to create the Big Bang. If it[the energy] thinks, it may wish to create. It's interest could then be paternal.

Interesting point there. Ok, if we assume it created the universe then it wouldn't be a hands on creator as in Genesis (unless you are suggesting it nipped around the universe tirelessly creating all the planets and billions of trillions of stars). I have to believe there must be other life forms out there (do you believe that?), and with the size of space, if there is one other populated planet there must be bazillions of them.

So, we have an energy source that creates the universe (begging the question: what created the energy source?). It then either nipped round the universe creating planets and stars and then populating some of them (highly unlikely imho) or the planets and stars formed through physical processes and some of those planets formed life. I find the latter orders of magnitude more likely.And in that scenario, if this god did create the universe initially, we, as life forms, would be an inconsequential by product.

loCAtek wrote:Yet, we have [quantum] proof of just that happening with the Big Bang and Black Holes.



I'd be interested in any references for such a proof. When I studied physics this was merely supposition. And it couldn't be quantum proof anyway - the scales are opposing.


A current theory

Ok, but a theory isn't proof

[loCAtek]

'Catching up with him" is again, like saying we can ultimately count to infinity.

I took that to mean that he was capable of infinitely many more things than us, which of course I wouldn't accept

Oh well, if you've decided then asking me my input is moot.

Not so obvious, we know, well strongly speculate, that it took a huge Energy density to create the Big Bang. If it[the energy] thinks, it may wish to create. It's interest could then be paternal.

Interesting point there. Ok, if we assume it created the universe then it wouldn't be a hands on creator as in Genesis

So? Why limit it to Genesis? Where does it say Genesis of only Earth? [Pardon my bluntness, but you're always trying to pigeon-hole spirituality into Christian dogma, when that's not all there is.]

There must be other life forms out there (do you believe that?), and with the size of space, if there is one other populated planet there must be bazillions of them.

I do believe in other lifeforms, but most scientists suggest those other planets are populated by microscopic life. If there are Space-Faring races, why haven't they shown themselves?

So, we have an energy source that creates the universe (begging the question: what created the energy source?). [Pointed out earlier and granted] It then either nipped round the universe creating planets and stars and then populating some of them (highly unlikely imho) or the planets and stars formed through physical processes and some of those planets formed life. I find the latter orders of magnitude more likely. [Or some planets didn't the help, and some did.] And in that scenario, if this god did create the universe initially, we, as life forms, would be an inconsequential by product.

Unless intelligent life is rare and precious, as seems to be, with the lack of bazillions of extraterrestrial contacts.

loCAtek wrote:Yet, we have [quantum] proof of just that happening with the Big Bang and Black Holes.



I'd be interested in any references for such a proof. When I studied physics this was merely supposition. And it couldn't be quantum proof anyway - the scales are opposing.


A current theory

Ok, but a theory isn't proof

Well, as stated quantum mathematics is never physical proof only speculative theory. (We can't go to other dimensions in a material/physical form) In this case, the computations are standing up to repeated investigation.


Also, it not being physical, but mental computation, makes it faith.

[loCAtek]

Sorry, lo, but it appears to me that you are simply splitting religion into the good bits that you call "spirituality" "and the dregs that you call "dogma". It is a little too neat and simplistic and I don't think the real world works that way. I'd have said the pope was a pretty spiritual person yet they have traditionally been among the worst of the lot.

Dogma is man-made, spirituality is divine

Well, that's lovely isn't it. Means that using this as a base, religion cannot be attacked or held accountable for anything bad. I don't accept that.

What? No. Dogma is how it's done. Spirituality is why it's done.


The 'how' can adapt and change, and even be affected by corruption.

The 'why' is universal: love, connect.

For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.
-Carl Sagan

[thestoat]

Oh well, if you've decided then asking me my input is moot.

Not at all. If you are saying "he is capable of infinitely many more things than us" then suggest some. You have managed 3 so far, which as I say is a long way from infinitely more. If this is not your meaning then I'd be interested to know what "'Catching up with him" is again, like saying we can ultimately count to infinity." does mean?

So? Why limit it to Genesis? Where does it say Genesis of only Earth? [Pardon my bluntness, but you're always trying to pigeon-hole spirituality into Christian dogma, when that's not all there is.]

No, I am really not limiting it to genesis. It is jus that Genesis discusses a creator god so I was merely using that as an example. Perhaps instead of saying "as in Genesis" I should have said "a la Genesis".

I do believe in other lifeforms, but most scientists suggest those other planets are populated by microscopic life.

If other life does exist then my belief is that there will be a vast array of levels of intellect out there (and thus technology). Sure, there will be microbes out there, but the odds would be strongly in favour of some of those microbes evolving, surely - due to the vast number of planets it is believed there are.

If there are Space-Faring races, why haven't they shown themselves?

I'd have thought that was obvious (assuming they haven't visited us a few times already). Space is so vast there are simply so many star systems to visit. Why would we be interesting when there is so much out there? Just in our galaxy there are a few hundred billino stars - and there are a few hundred billion galaxies in the known universe. Any space faring race would have a lot of places to visit.

Unless intelligent life is rare and precious, as seems to be, with the lack of bazillions of extraterrestrial contacts

Because we haven't yet met them doesn't mean they are not there - I thought that was the basis in a belief in god

Well, as stated quantum mathematics is never physical proof only speculative theory.

Sorry to be a pedant - but you called it quantum proof in your text.

Also, it not being physical, but mental computation, makes it faith.

Agreed. But a good faith

[loCAtek]

Oh well, if you've decided then asking me my input is moot.

Not at all. If you are saying "he is capable of infinitely many more things than us" then suggest some. You have managed 3 so far, which as I say is a long way from infinitely more. If this is not your meaning then I'd be interested to know what "'Catching up with him" is again, like saying we can ultimately count to infinity." does mean?

Well, attaining His age and wisdom, is like saying some day you'll be as be old as your Dad. When every year that you advance to your Dad's age, he advances another year too. We may be get smarter and more advanced, but then so does God. When does it stop? It appears to be an infinite progression.

Unless intelligent life is rare and precious, as seems to be, with the lack of bazillions of extraterrestrial contacts

Because we haven't yet met them doesn't mean they are not there - I thought that was the basis in a belief in god

Granted, touche'. It could also be that lack of FTL problem.

Which brings us back to this;

if this god did create the universe initially, we, as life forms, would be an inconsequential by product.

Well, that's one scenario; another is that great care was taken in providing us[All of us, cosmic beings] a self-sustaining habitat to live in.
Inconsequential is how man is treating the planet.

Well, as stated quantum mathematics is never physical proof only speculative theory.

Sorry to be a pedant - but you called it quantum proof in your text.

Oops, wasn't aware there was a distinction. That's like calling it a fact, isn't it?

Also, it not being physical, but mental computation, makes it faith.

Agreed. But a good faith

[thestoat]

Well, attaining His age and wisdom, is like saying some day you'll be as be old as your Dad. When every year that you advance to your Dad's age, he advances another year too. We may be get smarter and more advanced, but then so does God. When does it stop? It appears to be an infinite progression.

No way - surely if he can already do everything they he can't improve on that. You have said before that he is infinite. How do you advance that? Sure, we would never be as old as he is due to his head start, but taking the "dad" analogy, we can become better than our fathers, if not older.

Inconsequential is how man is treating the planet.

I can't argue with that.

lo - great to discuss this with you

[loCAtek]

Feelings mutual, get yourself out to debate more topics, that I'll be glad to debate/discuss with you.